Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: The Digital Mage <mn3rge@****.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Yet another go-around w/chargen
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 18:51:16 +0100
On Thu, 15 Jun 1995, Michael Orion Jackson wrote:

> character gen table/system for SRII. I am disssatified with the present
> one in that it: a) assumes that noone would want to different areas at
> the same level,
I'm not quite sure what your gripe is here, if you're saying you don't
like the current system because you can't have two different areas at the
same high level (ie you want both Attributes and Skills at Priority 1 or
A whatever its called) then the whole point is to limit you!!!!

If on the other hand you're saying you'd like to have an effectively
weaker charcter with two different areas at teh same low levels, then hey
you don't have to spend all those points, they've even shown that if you
don't want to spend all your Resources they effectively vanish (well get
divided by 10). I really don't see your problem, perhaps an example would
be helpful.

>b)theoretically allows everyone to have anything from any sourcebook.
I get your gripe here, but then the GM can say what players cana and
can't have and ask for in-game reasons why he should have that item (ie
I'd maybe let a Bodyguard character start with Orthoskin so they can take
a bullet easier, but I wouldn't allow it for a Decker!). Other people
have said that they use availibility codes to limit things. Other people
use the street prices so that real hard to get stuff cost a bundle.
Shadowtech itself states that none of teh stuff should be bought at
Charac Gen. I think even Alphs and Beta ware is restricted at Generation.

Mind you having said that, from the quick glance I gave your system I
think your's is probably a good solution too.


The Digital Mage : mn3rge@****.ac.uk
Shadowrun Web Site under construction at
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~mn3rge/Shadowrun.html

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.